Property seized from the possession of a person should ordinarily be returned to him after the criminal proceedings are dropped, unless his possession was acquired in a dishonest or unlawful manner.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. filed for quashing the order of the Magistrate, dated 29th April, 1975, by which he ordered Bus No. USO 4385 to be delivered to Brij Kumar Gupta opposite party No. 1, as it was deemed to have been recovered from his possession. The bus was seized by the police on the basis of a first information report lodged by the petitioner under Sections 420, 468 and 379, I. P. C. against Brij Kumar Gupta. It was alleged in the first information report that the petitioner had purchased the bus from the firm Kishun Lai Brijesh Kumar and the same had been financed by Brij Kumar Gupta opposite party No. 1 and the money had been borrowed from him on the basis of a pronote for a sum of Rs. 12,500. It was further alleged that it had been settled between the petitioner and Brij Kumar Gupta that the petitioner would pay Rs. 1,000 per month to Brij Kumar Gupta and the petitioner used to pay the money regularly to him, but Brij Kumar did not issue any receipt, It was also alleged that Brij Kumar had obtained signatures on blank papers and stamp papers from the petitioner when he was under the influence of liquor. On 1st January, 1975, Brij Kumar wanted the bus to be transferred, but the applicant did not agree to it. On 8th January, 1975, Brij Kumar then took away the bus with the help of Ram Kishun Driver from the possession of the driver of the petitioner, when the. petitioner was away. His driver informed the petitioner on his return that the bus had " been sold to Ram Kishun Manohar Lai for Rs. 60,000, It was also stated that the petitioner had learnt that the bus was standing in Generalganj, Mathura.

( 2 ) THE bus was seized toy the police from Generalganj, Mathura. On the basis of this report, the police made investigation and then submitted a final report as it was considered to be a dispute of civil nature. The learned Magistrate then passed the impugned order dated April 29, 1975. It appears that Brij Kumar filed a civil suit in January, 1975 soon after a first information report was lodged for a declaration that the bus belonged to him. He had prayed for a temporary injunction restraining Brijendra Singh from taking possession of the bus from the police. In that suit, he had filed several documents as has been averred in the counter-affidavit. Temporary injunction was, however, refused in that suit. F. A, F. O. No. 67 of 1975 was preferred in this Court and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench vide its order dated April 10, 1975, It was observed by this Court in that decision that temporary injunction in that suit was against the spirit of Section 41, Sub-section (d) of the Specific Relief Act. Section 41 (d) reads as follows:

Injunction when refused 41. An injunction cannot be granted. (d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;

( 3 ) THE Civil Court obviously took the view that the Magistrate was seized of the matter and it was for the Magistrate to pass suitable orders for the disposal of the property. It was obviously of the view that any injunction order passed by the civil court in such a case may amount to restraining a person from prosecution proceedings in a criminal matter.

( 4 ) THE order about the custody of the property had to be passed under Section 457, Cr, P. C. (New ). It is a consistent view of the court that after the criminal proceedings are dropped the property should ordinarily be returned to the person from whose possession it was taken. It was so held in the case of Zafar Ali v. Tausik Hasan, 1971 All Cri C 101 = (1971 Cri LJ 986 ). It was also held in an un-reported case of Badan Singh v. State of U P (Criminal Revision No, 568 of 1972) decided by Honble Mr. Justice J. M. L. Sinha on 17-3-1975 (All. ). In fact similar view was expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Muneshwar Bux Singh v. State. It was observed as follows : In our opinion where property is recovered fro